The soap opera effect drives me nuts. I just about can't watch something when it's on. It makes a multimillion dollar movie look like it was slapped together in an afternoon.
Why don't you invest in some 3D scanning equipment/software. Build the physical object or close to it, then scan it and tweak it in software, doing the whole process backwards.
The analogy is strained. Software is closer to a food recipe than a building. Trying to make a 3-layer strawberry banana cake with pineapple frosting? You are going to have to bake something and taste it to see if your recipe is any good. Then make some adjustments and bake some more.
Is the argument here that a skilled chef has no better way to make good food than unguided trial and error? That's obviously not true, as the abundance of "random ingredient" cooking challenges will attest.
I've got loads of Notepad++ tabs open for various things. No concerns about having to save them as they auto save, and they persist if the system reboots for whatever reason. Other than that, I just use indentation to organize related items.
The writing felt like it was deliberately long-winded as though being so would complement the point it was trying to make. IMO, the author did not make a compelling case that their wordiness was worth the time spent reading it.
At the heart of it all is language. Logic gates to assembly to high level programming languages are a progression of turning human language into computed processes. LLMs need to be tuned to recognize ambiguity of intention in human language instructions, following up with clarifying questions. Perhaps quantum computing will facilitate the process, the AI holding many fuzzy possibilities simultaneously, seeking to "collapse" them into discrete pathways by asking for more input from a human.
It would make a lot more sense to boil the frog over a long period of time with steady, scheduled increases in tariffs instead of pouring scalding water on everyone's heads all at once. Even with plenty of capital and willpower and know how, it takes plenty of time for industry to be built out. Under ideal conditions, even, these tariffs are harmful (and we don't have ideal conditions).
Having never given much thought to it, your analysis rings true to my native Texan ears.
There's another usage that comes to mind, though. One might argue that "y'all" borders on a second person plural inclusive of the speaker whereas "all y'all" marks a distinction between the speaker and the others. For instance, a peeved person would be more likely to say, "All y'all can kiss my ass," as opposed to, "Y'all can kiss my ass." "Y'all" by itself is more friendly and self-inclusive than "all y'all", which carries an inherent otherness to it.
I knew I explained that poorly. What I mean is that, in comparing "y'all" to "all y'all", a simple "y'all" is "you guys (and maybe me)" while "all y'all" is "you guys and not me".
Grammatical constructs can have a lot of variation between languages, and there are certainly nuances that can't be expressed in English the same way that it can be in other languages. One thing we lack is a nuanced sense of past, while other languages have baked in ways to express recent past or distant past (e.g. Bantu languages).
My proposed interpretation regarding "all y'all" is not academic, just a native feel, and I'm sure other native speakers could disagree.
Hmm, interesting. I'm not from Texas but I have family who is. I'll listen for this one also.
I'm under the impression that the double negative is a relatively modern thing (early 1800's). Previously, repetition of the negative just reinforced it, like:
> I ain't never put syrup on my bacon on purpose
...just double-enphasized the negative, rather than letting the second negative negate the first. This feels similar except instead of stacking negations you're stacking separations.
